There is no such thing as a ‘pro-choice’ Christian

Let’s begin with the Bible’s constant and consistent message condemning the taking of innocent life. Exodus, Deuteronomy, Psalms, Revelation, Matthew — all of these books engrave this truth into stone. Psalms, in particular, has a very relevant verse: “They sacrificed their sons and their daughters to demons, and they shed innocent blood, the blood of their sons and their daughters… desecrating the land with bloodshed.”

Question: is abortion the taking of a life? Yes. Call it a fetus, call it an embryo, call it a moose if you like. What you can’t call it is inanimate matter. Therefore, it is a life.

Another question: is that life innocent? Yes. And I shudder to think that anyone would suggest otherwise.

The Bible repeatedly condemns the killing of innocents, but abortion kills the innocent.

Yes, “kill” must be understood as “murder,” and murder can’t be understood to include justified and righteous killing like self-defense, or the defense of a loved one. It is not hard for me to understand “thou shalt not kill (except in matters of self-defense and just warfare). But it is a little difficult to comprehend this version: “thou shalt not kill (unless you’re killing your young child).”

The Bible also teaches that God specifically commanded the human race to “be fruitful and multiply.” Abortion would seem to fall short of that directive.

Scripture says that life is sacred (“I came that they may have life” – John 10 “There shall be no more death” – Revelation 21 “Thanks be to God who gives us victory” over death – 1 Corinthians 15 “He will destroy death forever” – Isaiah 25) and that children are a “gift from God” (Psalm 127).

Most compellingly, the Bible repeatedly says that God creates and forms every human being (“God created man in His image” – Genesis “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you” – Jeremiah). Unless you believe in a flawed and clumsy Lord, you must not think that any life can be accidental, or that God wishes for any of the beings made in His image to be exterminated before they even emerge from the womb. God has a plan for all of us, and our job as parents is to guide our children in following and understanding that plan.

Further, Jesus makes it clear that whatever we do or fail to do for “the least of His brothers” we did or failed to do for Him (Matthew 25). When we abort a child, we are therefore aborting Christ.

I feel sick even typing that sentence, but there is no other way to interpret the matter.

But the most shocking Biblical attacks against abortion cannot be boiled down to one or two sentences. The central point — the Ultimate Moment — of Christianity is, among other things, a stunning rebuke against abortion. Indeed, if there is one issue today that most offends and desecrates the Christian Message, it is abortion.

Think about it: Jesus was miraculously conceived in the womb. He spent his first nine months on Earth as a “fetus.” If abortion wasn’t a grave sin up until that point (even though it was), it would have become the gravest of sins afterwards. Jesus elevated all of mankind when he became one of us. And He became one of us through every stage, so every stage was elevated and sanctified.

Let me repeat this: if you are a Christian then you believe that CHRIST HIMSELF was a “fetus.” How can the “fetus” be anything other than sacred life after such an event?

Just a glob of cells? Is that what a Christian would say of his Savior?

We don’t know what Christ looked like exactly, but we know he once looked something like this:

And how did Jesus’ life end? He sacrificed Himself for the our sake.

Sacrifice.

Christianity is a religion of sacrifice, while abortion is a sacrament for those who wish to avoid it.

Sacrifice. Love. Life.

Abortion stands opposed to all of these things, and so it stands opposed to God, and so it stands opposed to Christianity.

That doesn’t mean that pro-choice people can never be Christian, and it certainly doesn’t mean that post-abortive mothers aren’t welcome. Far from it. Christianity is also a religion of forgiveness, and thank God for that, because I am in constant need of God’s eternal mercy.

Christianity is a faith for all people, but it is not a faith for all notions and ideas. You cannot simultaneously profess the Faith while also defending the murder of the innocent. You are welcome into the church, but your belief in baby-murder is not. You cannot carry the cross and a Planned Parenthood banner at the same time.

You have to drop the one, and pick up the other.

I hope you do. I hope you start today. Now. This moment.

But until then, you cannot follow Christ while you still support the murder of His children.

Matt Walsh

1,145 Comments

After being totally repulsed by the tone of Matt Walsh in another topic…I've decided to read more of his articles so that I'm not judging unfairly. But I'm finding more and more reason to be disappointed and ashamed that he is a Christian.

Apparently one people aren't allowed to self identify. Only Matt Walsh knows who qualifies as a Christian.

My pastor, a well known southern pastor of a church with around 2 thousand members… As conservative as they get.. Told the story one Sunday of a girl who sat in his office crying. The girl told him that she didn't believe in abortion either… But that the child inside her body was her child… And also her sibling.

With this my pastor broke down into tears and said "ya know folks.. There's a whole lot of grey"

So… Pro choice people… You're not Christians according to Matt Walsh…

I feel like If I need to have a perfect opinion on everything before I can be a Christian.. I will never get there.

Exodus 21:22 strongly suggests that causing a woman to miscarry is NOT the same as murder… Hence, the penalty is different, and the perpetrator is fined at the discretion of the husband. However , if he causes serious injury to the woman or takes her life, the penalty is much stiffer. Hence, a fetus was NOT recognized as a full citizen.

“If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.” Exodus 21:22-25 The first part is GIVING BIRTH PREMATURELY. That means the baby comes unharmed into life, not miscarried. The second says if you cause damage to the baby you have to be damaged in the same way as penalty. Hence, (as you said), a fetus is recognized as a person!

I’m sure you are aware that there is debate about the original intent of what you quoted in the NIV. However, let us just assume you see right about that. What is not under debate is the location of the fetus. If it is an offense to God, how about letting the woman answer to Him for it? I’m not sure why the government or private citizens feel that they should stand in His place and force the woman to answer to them. People who do not believe in abortion should not have one. Why should you be concerned about what happens in another woman’s uterus?

foxka2014, I am sure you are aware that there is some division of opinion over that verse. That is, no doubt, why you chose to quote the NIV rather than any of the other versions that used the word “miscarriage.” However, let us assume you are right and a fertilized egg is defined as a full human by God, long before the organs are formed, etc… Let us go with that. One thing that is NOT up for debate is the location of said fertilized egg. Why are you so concerned about what goes on in another woman’s uterus? If it is a sin before God, why not let her answer to Him rather than to the government or to yourself? Do you have a vested interest in the fertilized egg in her uterus? I think not. I am a firm believer that we all answer to God for our actions, but the government or your opinion should have no bearing on my uterus. I am not, by the way, “pro-abortion.” I am pro-choice. There is a difference. The difference being, I recognize that what goes on in another woman’s body is none of my business– or yours, for that matter.

The Bible permits killing the unborn, just as it permits slavery and the subjugation of women. Like animal activists, pro-lifers must argue in terms of secular social progress.

Genesis 38:24. Tamar’s pregnancy was proof that she was sexually active. Because she was a widow, without a husband, she was assumed to be a prostitute. Her father-in-law, Judah, ordered that she be burned alive for her crime.

If Tamar’s fetuses had any value whatsoever, her execution would have been delayed until after their birth. There was no condemnation on Judah for deciding to take this action.

Exodus 21:22-24. If two men are fighting and one injures a pregnant woman and the fetus is killed, he shall repay her according to the degree of injury inflicted upon *her*, and not the fetus.

Author Brian McKinley, a born-again Christian, comments:

“Thus we can see that if the baby is lost, it does not require a death sentence-it is not considered murder. But if the woman is lost, it is considered murder and is punished by death.”

Pro-life apologists say at least the unborn has *some* value in the Old Testament, if not actual or real personhood. But the New Testament is more permissive than the Old Testament!

In Christianity, Paul’s gospel displaces Jesus’ gospel. Paul claims the Law (which Jesus repeatedly upheld) is abolished, and refers to his previous adherence to the Law as “so much garbage.”

Some pro-life Christians argue they don’t have to follow Paul, either, because Paul claims the risen Jesus said to him three times, “…my grace is sufficient for thee…”, and they take these words as a license to do as they please, ignoring all of the moral instructions Paul gives throughout his epistles!

If their view prevails, then:

What basis do pro-life Christians have for prohibiting abortion?

Doesn’t “three times…” justify the right to choose abortion?!

Secular arguments are religion-neutral and thus applicable to *everyone* including atheists and agnostics. The pro-life movement ALREADY HAS the inspiration, blessings, and support of organized religion. Instead of preaching to the choir, i.e., wasting time with religion, pro-lifers should focus on embryology and prenatal development, DNA, RNA, etc. to make their case to mainstream secular society.

Yeah, it's still wrong. Emotions are meaningless in the quest for right and wrong. Killing that child is still killing it, regardless of whether or not the father in question is an incest-inducing rapist. Murdering the child will not erase or lessen her pain anymore than it will punish her sick father. So, maybe you should think with your brain, and not with your emotions.

Genesis 38:24. Tamar’s pregnancy was discovered three months after conception. This was proof that she was sexually active. Because she was a widow, without a husband, she was assumed to be a prostitute. Her father-in-law, Judah, ordered that she be burned alive for her crime.

If Tamar’s fetuses had any value whatsoever, her execution would have been delayed until after their birth.

There was no condemnation on Judah for deciding to take this action.

Exodus 21:22-24. If two men are fighting and one injures a pregnant woman and the fetus is killed, he shall repay her according to the degree of injury inflicted upon *her*, and not the fetus.

Born-again author Brian McKinley comments:

“Thus we can see that if the baby is lost, it does not require a death sentence-it is not considered murder. But if the woman is lost, it is considered murder and is punished by death.”

The New Testament is more permissive than the Old!

Paul not only claims Mosaic Law has been abolished, and refers to his previous adherence to the Law as “so much garbage…” but claims the risen Jesus said to him three times, “…my grace is sufficient for thee…” (II Corinthians 12:8-9).

Some Christians misinterpret this verse to mean they’re free to do as they please — ignoring all of the moral instructions Paul gives throughout his epistles altogether!

(“Choice. Choice. Choice.”)

There are pro-choice Protestant denominations, like the United Church of Christ.

I'm not pro-abortion. I'm not pro-choice. But, many pro-lifers wouldn't allow me to stand with them either. In this country, at the time being, it is a woman's right to choose. Right or wrong, that is the reality of living in the US right now. I don't advocate for abortions, but the fact that I acknowledge a woman's right to choose makes me somewhat of an outcast to some people I know. But Matt Walsh makes my argument for me in this column. Kinda. He says, "you can't advocate for slavery while also being a proponent of civil rights." Absolutely. But even the Bible instructs rulers how to treat their slaves and slaves how to treat their rulers. (Just ask any atheist about these issues, this is commonly pointed out to being a biblical endorsement of slavery). But this is hardly an endorsement by God to slavery. My acknowledgement of a woman's rights does not equal an endorsement, but that doesn't go over well in my very conservative Southern Baptist church.

I agree, it is important to understand Y in relation to the moral acceptance of X. As such, my understanding of education, contraception and reformed adoption laws are precisely because of the country's acceptance of abortion. Besides, isn't better education (abstinence) and contraception the best preventative? The more pregnancies we prevent, the less pregnancies get aborted. But again, that doesn't go over well at the pot luck dinners, so to speak.

David nailed it there. A life is a life, why would you end the possible miracle of life that could come from such a heinous act? Is it a disgusting, heinous, immoral act that created that child? Yes of course. But killing that life is only pouring more disgusting, more heinous, and more immorality on it. Letting it live is creating life and beauty out of horror and darkness.

David nailed it there. A life is a life, why would you end the possible miracle of life that could come from such a heinous act? Is it a disgusting, heinous, immoral act that created that child? Yes of course. But killing that life is only pouring more disgusting, more heinous, and more immorality on it. Letting it live is creating life and beauty out of horror and darkness.

If either of you took time to properly read what I wrote.. You will see that my words were "I believe abortion is wrong too" by the girl who had her own sibling inside her body.

I believe abortion is like shooting a 10 year old in the face.

My point and my pastors point was that we shouldn't be so quick to judge. That's the grey.

"Yeah it's still wrong" that sounds so passive aggressive and rude.

And if this girl had an abortion or somebody is pro choice? Matt Walsh does NOT have the right to define somebody else's relationship with God. Pathetic. And so are all you little matt nazis who freak out and run your mouths before you even take time to understand what somebody I saying.

Leigh Dean First of all, I'm not Catholic at all. I'm simply common-sense. I prefer to use rationale and logic to base my positions on, rather than "feelz" and whatever happens to make me sad or happy on any given day.

You cannot blame us for assuming that your comment was a defense of being pro-choice, since THAT'S EXACTLY HOW YOU WORDED IT. Your allegory, told through the mouth of your pastor, is quite simply incorrect; there is not a "whole lot of grey." Society tries to tell us that, because there is a lot of emotion in a situation, we suddenly have a lot of "grey." "Grey" is the world's way of conning us into excusing sin in the lives of those around us (which often transforms into excusing our own sin, as well).

When a man takes a rock and beats his neighbor to death, it's murder… the fact that his neighbor raped his son in no way changes this. When a man steals from a bank, it's theft… the fact that the bank has disreputable business practices and ruined him financially in no way changes this. When a woman kills her baby in the womb, it's murder… the fact that the father of the child is also her own father in no way changes this. In all of these situations, we can FEEL empathy for the individuals trapped by difficult circumstances… but to let that "feeling" dictate what we KNOW to be murder or theft is as much a sin as anything else.

Being "pro-choice" is saying "I think Ladies A, B, C, and D have the right to murder their child." It doesn't matter if Lady C is the victim of rape… it makes the act of murder no less murderous. The argument "there's a whole lot of grey" is nothing more than a smokescreen used by those unwilling to take a stand that will make them targets by the all-feeling, no-knowing world of today.

So, here's the bottom line: if you were trying to argue that we need to be more conscious of the fact that abortion is occasionally not just the tool of a Saturday night hussy having a Sunday morning surprise, then you need to SAY SO. I will not debate that point with you; empathy is important, it's needed, and it's a good thing to have for ALL sinners, since we are ourselves equally born into sin. But you didn't say that we needed to have a more understanding heart, or that we needed to add more grace into our handling of these situations; no, instead you presented us with a heartstring-tugging tale that ended with you suggesting that sometimes abortion is okay and it's therefore sometimes okay to be pro-choice… both of which are WRONG.

Do not blame us for not understanding your point, since you never actually put it into words.

Leigh Dean Neither am I catholic. And yes, as I said, there are some terrible situations out there. My point was in response to you, to abort a baby that came out of a terrible situation like that is to heap more terrible on top of it. It's taking the rest of the canoe away from the person that's up excrement creek without a paddle already, if I can be colorful. I would never say that that person then is not a Christian, or presume to judge their relationship with God. God wants all to be saved, and I can guarantee that He will be there for that mother no matter what her choice is. He will be there to comfort and guide her, through everything, even if she chooses and abortion. Nevertheless, the act of killing that baby is still a sin, the choice to kill that baby is still a sin. That's all there is to it. There is no grey when it comes to sin, sin is sin.

Oh please. I noted more than anything else in my reply that my issue was Matt Walsh saying who can and who can not be anChristian.

There is a lot of black and white….. And a lot of grey. Grey isn't always about right and wrong but the things in life that we are not clear on or don't have the ability to understand.

I absolutely blame you for not reading correctly and for speaking to me with such hate. If Matt Walsh can say pro choicers aren't Christian…. Then is can say I've seen nothing of Christ in the way you replied to me.

There are pro-choice Protestant denominations like the United Church of Christ. Many of the arguments pro-life Christians use to deny rights to animals could just as easily be used by pro-choice Christians to deny rights to the unborn.

Can pro-choice Christians dismiss protecting the unborn as unnecessary “work” or “so much garbage” from the Law which Paul says is abolished?

Can pro-choice Christians cite Exodus 21 which clearly indicates the unborn do not have the status of a person, like pro-life Christians claiming animals don’t have souls?

Can pro-choice Christians cite Paul’s claim that the risen Jesus told him three times, “…my grace is sufficient for thee…” to say they don’t have to protect the unborn if they don’t want to?

Can pro-choice Christians say killing the unborn is a choice echoing Paul in Romans 14 ?

Can pro-choice Christians shrug off a serious moral issue like the unborn’s right to life with pious platitudes like, “Also, since we are all sinners, we should never be proud or judgmental…” ?

What about a pro-choice Christian telling his followers, “You *don’t* have to protect the unborn… all you have to do is accept Jesus…” ?

Saying, “the Bible permits us to kill animals” isn’t convincing. The Bible permits killing the unborn, slavery and the subjugation of women, too.

Genesis 38:24. Tamar’s pregnancy was discovered three months after conception. This was proof that she was sexually active. Because she was a widow, without a husband, she was assumed to be a prostitute. Her father-in-law, Judah, ordered that she be burned alive for her crime.

If Tamar’s fetuses had any value whatsoever, her execution would have been delayed until after their birth.

There was no condemnation on Judah for deciding to take this action.

Exodus 21:22-24. If two men are fighting and one injures a pregnant woman and the fetus is killed, he shall repay her according to the degree of injury inflicted upon *her*, and not the fetus.

Born-again author Brian McKinley comments:

“Thus we can see that if the baby is lost, it does not require a death sentence–it is not considered murder. But if the woman is lost, it is considered murder and is punished by death.”

Pro-life apologists say the fetus has *some* value, if not actual personhood, but the New Testament is more permissive than the Old!

Paul not only claims the Law has been abolished and refers to his previous adherence to the Law as “so much garbage,” but claims the risen Jesus said to him three times, “…my grace is sufficient for thee…” (II Corinthians 12:8-9).

Some Christians misinterpret this verse to mean they’re free to do as they please–ignoring the rest of the moral instructions Paul gives throughout his epistles altogether!

…wow. Only one of us has name-called or made this personal, but I'm the one speaking in "hate"? You have a fundamentally-flawed understanding of hate, Leigh.

…also, NONE of those areas are "gray areas." Every thing that you have listed… EVERY SINGLE THING… is comprised of elements that fall clearly into "good" or "evil" categories. One at a time, perhaps?

1.) Nowhere in the Bible or in covenant law does it forbid drinking, only "drunkenness," so scratch "drinking" off of your list.

2.) Dating? The concept didn't even EXIST in the Bible's times, but that doesn't make it a "gray" area. It merely makes it a concept with elements of both good and evil. Going on a date with a girl/guy? Not a sin. Sexually engaging with said girl/guy outside of the confines of marriage? DEFINITELY a sin. So, nix "dating."

3.) Kissing is not a "gray" area, but it can be used for both good and for sinful purposes. If you give your friend/date a kiss to express love and/or affection, there is no sin there. However, if the kiss is intended to express sexual interest and occurs outside the confines of marriage, it's a sin. End of story. So, toss THAT "gray area out the window, too.

4.) Gambling might SEEM to be a "gray area," but it's really not. If gambling is engaged as a form of entertainment, then it's okay. If gambling is used as a method for profit or involves the unwise and spurious use of the gifts God has given one (including monetary blessings), then there IS a sin. The fact that it's different for various people does not make it a "gray area," it just makes it a complex issue. So, nay to "gambling" as a gray area.

5.) Smoking is not a gray area, either. If it is an addiction, it is a sin. If it is consumed to a degree that it damages your body, it is a sin. If it is an occasional pleasure with no need for repetition or fixation, then it's not a sin. It might not be WISE, but it isn't a sin.

6.) Clothing… really? If clothing violates one of God's commandments or if it is designed to evoke sinful reactions, it's a sin to indulge in them. Otherwise, wear clothes; Lord knows we're not a nudist colony.

7.) Music, movies, and television… the trifecta of media. Again, like clothes, it's all about the intent and the effect. Are you watching/listening to something to indulge in a sinful nature? Is the purpose of the program/music to indulge the sinful nature? If either of these are true, then it's a sin to engage in it. If not, then it's fine.

8.) Birth control… really? Does it interrupt the development of a new life, or does it prevent the new life from being conceived in the first place? If it does the former, then it is sinful. If not, no sin. Some Catholics might disagree, but if they were intellectually honest with themselves I think they might recognize the truth of what I just said.

9.) Dancing is Biblically-accepted, so long as it isn't intended to sexually coerce someone into sin through fornication or libation. Other than that, go nuts.

10.) Spending your money isn't a sinful thing. That's why money exists in the first place. We live in a marketplace economy. The only thing potentially sinful about spending your money is WHAT you spend it on and HOW much of it you spend on certain things. If your money goes to support, propagate, or indulge in sin, then it's being spent sinfully. Otherwise, welcome to the marketplace.

11.) Home schooling… REALLY? How is that in any way an issue of gray? The choice to homeschool or not is not a matter of sin in and of itself… it's a matter of correctly rearing up Christian children. If a public school makes it impossible for you to do so, then it's a sin to leave them in such an environment. Move to another school. Homeschool. Whatever. So long as your children are not abandoned to the world with no Christ teachings, there is no sin in one or the other.

12.) Working moms are fine, so long as their duty to their family is not neglected. There is nothing in the Bible stopping women from working, nor is there any Biblical or covenant law that forbids it. Moms are still women, and their having children in no way diminishes that, nor does it diminish our charge as parents to provide for our children. So, scratch "working moms" off of your list.

Everything you cited as being "gray areas" are not gray at ALL… they merely require critical thinking to be applied to individual situations. The concept of "gray area" that this sinful world has pressed on us to convince us that sin isn't always sin is a bunch of crap. Sin is sin is sin. No aspect of the 13-year-old girl's situation is "gray"… tragic, heart-breaking, and stunning, yes. "Gray"? No. It doesn't matter how that child came into existence, it is still a child that God chose to create and enter into this world. To kill that child for any reason other than a medical emergency is quite simply murder. No "gray" area here.

…and obviously you WERE debating abortion. The article was specifically about how supporting a woman's right to murder her children is quite simply incongruous with the Christian faith, and you chose to engage in a polar position. Your example was also about abortion. There is no way in which you made ANY effort to pretend this was about anything else, and your sanctimonious (not to mention insincere) effort to recast the situation simply weakens your own integrity in this debate.

Telling you to "try using your brain" has nothing to do with me "hating" you. In point of fact, I don't know you; hating someone I don't know and have no vested interest in sounds tedious and tiring. But you have made readily apparent by your disjointed rebuttals of my position that you are NOT, in fact, using your brain; your every entreaty has been anchored to an emotional root. This is about you feeling bad about Matt Walsh speaking harsh truths ("being a jerk," as you called me), so you lash out. At no point have you consistently made a logical or rational argument for your position, and your position itself has evolved into something totally different than its original phase.

Feel free to continue attacking me personally, name-calling, and calling me a "hater" or what-not… I don't particularly care. By now I think I've simply run out of ways to expose the truth, and I suspect you have run out of ways to try and emotionally-charge the situation and eek out a victory (though I have little doubt you'll try anyway). So, good luck with the luke-warm approach, though I think the Bible casts a shadow on how that's gonna turn out.

If you can't see that your tone and "use your brain" comment were rude then there isn't anything I can do about that.

I can't read past "one at a time" it won't allow me to hit the "continue" button.

But if you're talking about the things I listed the are grey… They absolutely are. These topics are covered no where in the bible. Good and evil are black and white. But something like drinking? The bible isn't specific. It's an extremely gray topic for Christians. Some people think that alcohol is 100% evil. And others think it's fine as long as you don't….whatever. There are lots of bible verses on te topic that support drinking and discourage drinking. It's a gray topic.

Matt Walsh has said here that pro choice people can't be Christians. = pro choice people are going to hell = aren't covered by the blood of Jesus Christ. It's a disgusting thing to say. I believe that the blood is Christ is strong enough to cover even the abortionist who is committing these acts. But I guess you and Matt Walsh and all the Matt Walsh supporters are the ones who regulate the grace of God? Apparently according to Matt…. There is infact a limit.

It's bad thinking to use a "well you just don't understand" or "you just didn't read correctly" argument. Your over zealous reply to me was ugly. Do you spaz out on everyone who disagrees with you that way? Do you tell people to "use your brain" that you dot even know? Didnt your mother teach you to respect people especially females?

If you can't see that your tone and "use your brain" comment were rude then there isn't anything I can do about that.

I can't read past "one at a time" it won't allow me to hit the "continue" button.

But if you're talking about the things I listed the are grey… They absolutely are. These topics are covered no where in the bible. Good and evil are black and white. But something like drinking? The bible isn't specific. It's an extremely gray topic for Christians. Some people think that alcohol is 100% evil. And others think it's fine as long as you don't….whatever. There are lots of bible verses on te topic that support drinking and discourage drinking. It's a gray topic.

Matt Walsh has said here that pro choice people can't be Christians. = pro choice people are going to hell = aren't covered by the blood of Jesus Christ. It's a disgusting thing to say. I believe that the blood is Christ is strong enough to cover even the abortionist who is committing these acts. But I guess you and Matt Walsh and all the Matt Walsh supporters are the ones who regulate the grace of God? Apparently according to Matt…. There is infact a limit.

It's bad thinking to use a "well you just don't understand" or "you just didn't read correctly" argument. Your over zealous reply to me was ugly. Do you spaz out on everyone who disagrees with you that way? Do you tell people to "use your brain" that you dot even know? Didnt your mother teach you to respect people especially females?

Leigh Dean
Then maybe you should try to read again. Point by point, I re-stated every "gray" point that you made and refuted it, showing how the Bible actually DOES address these things. Your arguments are misleading. In math terms, what you are arguing is that basic math does not teach you how to get the percentage of a given number; in truth, basic math gives you the tools necessary to work an entire payroll, including deductions, percentages, etc… you just have to know how to combine and apply the correct tools in the proper way. So it is with your "gray areas"… the Bible gives you the tools to definitively determine what is right and wrong in each of these situations, so long as you are willing to take the time to correctly apply them in the proper way.

You criticize me for an "over-zealous reply," when you were the one who began with the personal insults against Matt Walsh. You disagreed with his statement, fine; but at least Matt's opposing view didn't allow for the industrialized genocide of infants across the globe. Can YOU say the same? No, no you can't.

Again and again, when confronted with my valid arguments and theological points, you have been reduced to personal attacks and insinuations in an effort to try and tip the scales in your favor, even going so far as to trot out the trite "gender" card. My mother taught me that any woman who was willing to take a swipe should expect a swipe back. You call me "jerk," you insult me because I exposed your intellectual weakness to people, and you expect to be treated with kid gloves because you're a WOMAN? What utter and disgusting lunacy! Your gender and genitalia have NOTHING to do with your emotional handicaps or your intellectual fumbling during this encounter. If you can't handle being called out, don't call people out yourself.

Other than that, I have nothing to say unless you push past the temerity and read my individual critiques as listed above. Until then, this is it for the discussion.

Dating for example. Is it Christian or not to date at 16 or 18? Or is it okay to hold hands or not? There is nothing in the bible that guides us on that. It's a gray area.

You're just a right fighter. You freak out if somebody had a different opinion. You can't handle it.

But this is from a fan of a man who doesn't allow other people to self identify.

The fact that you want to disrespectfully argue with me over simplistic things like what is gray and what isn't tells me a lot about your character. You're simply not a respectable man in the way you approach conflict. You're rude to strangers you meet online…. Women. That's pathetically weak.

You've been nothing but rude to me. And your goal here isn't to resolve anything or share anything in love… It's to be right.

So people who are pro choice and people who have had anortions… According to David and Matt… The blood of Christ doesn't cover you. Have you informed God of this yet? Incase you didn't know.. The Holy Spirit isn't on vaca. He didn't ask you do judge and convict souls in his absence. God is still in the throne.

Pro-lifers don’t realize that the theological arguments they’re using to deny rights to animals could just as easily be used by pro-choicers to deny rights to the unborn!

Do pro-choicers get a “three times…” or a “so much garbage” or a “basically…” or an “also…” or can they dismiss protecting the unborn as “work…”, as someone else’s “religious belief,” etc.?

We explain to pro-lifers that abortion is the karma for killing animals. We ask pro-lifers not to kill animals. They respond they don’t have to “work.”

Can’t pro-choicers make the same argument?

Abortionist George Tiller, A CHRISTIAN, was killed in CHURCH by anti-abortion fanatic Scott Roeder years ago.

If pro-lifers had politely asked Tiller to stop killing the unborn, couldn’t he have responded they’re asking him to “work”?

The word ‘ahimsa’ literally means “nonviolence,” and that’s how I read it. According to Nine Beliefs of Hinduism, a tract published by the Himalayan Academy of San Francisco: “Hindus believe that all life is sacred, to be loved and revered, and therefore practice ahimsa, or nonviolence.”

Brother Wayne Teasdale, a Benedictine monk who passed away in 2004, similarly wrote in 1995:

“…it is necessary to elevate nonviolence to a noble place in our civilization of loving compassion because nonviolence as ahimsa in the Hindu tradition, a tradition that seems to possess the most advanced understanding of nonviolence, IS love! Love is the goal and ultimate nature of nonviolence as an inner disposition and commitment of the heart. It is the fulfillment of love and compassion in the social sphere, that is, in the normal course of relations among people in the matrix of society.”

“Abortionist George Tiller, A CHRISTIAN, was killed in CHURCH by anti-abortion fanatic Scott Roeder years ago.”

I have no idea what sort of bizarre argument you’re even trying to make here.

What I do know is that animals are not human beings and human beings are not animals.

What I do know is that the George Tiller was not a follower of Jesus Christ because 1) the Bible condemns murder as being a sin, and 2) followers of Christ do not make their living by murdering children.

Saying, “the Bible permits us to kill animals” isn’t convincing. The Bible permits killing the unborn, slavery and the subjugation of women, too.

Genesis 38:24. Tamar’s pregnancy was discovered three months after conception. This was proof that she was sexually active. Because she was a widow, without a husband, she was assumed to be a prostitute. Her father-in-law, Judah, ordered that she be burned alive for her crime.

If Tamar’s fetuses had any value whatsoever, her execution would have been delayed until after their birth.

There was no condemnation on Judah for deciding to take this action.

Exodus 21:22-24. If two men are fighting and one injures a pregnant woman and the fetus is killed, he shall repay her according to the degree of injury inflicted upon *her*, and not the fetus.

Born-again author Brian McKinley comments:

“Thus we can see that if the baby is lost, it does not require a death sentence-it is not considered murder. But if the woman is lost, it is considered murder and is punished by death.”

There are pro-choice Protestant denominations, like the United Church of Christ.

Halacha (Jewish Law) does define when a fetus becomes a nephesh (person), a full-fledged human being, when the head emerges from the womb. Before then, the fetus is considered a “partial-life”; it gains full human status after birth only.

The Babylonian Talmud (Yevamot 69b) states that: “the embryo is considered to be mere water until the fortieth day.” Afterward, it is considered subhuman until it is born.

Rashi, the great 12th century commentator on the Bible and the Talmud, states clearly of the fetus ‘lav nephesh hu — it is not a person.’

The Talmud contains the expression, “the thigh of its mother,” i.e., the fetus is deemed to be part and parcel of the pregnant woman’s body.

This is grounded in Exodus 21:22. That biblical passage outlines the Mosaic Law in a case where a man is responsible for causing a woman’s miscarriage, which kills the fetus.

If the woman survives, then the perpetrator has to pay a fine to the woman’s husband. If the woman is killed, the perpetrator is also killed. This indicates that the fetus has value, but does not have the status of a person.

According to the Bible, the unborn is not a person. This is grounded in Exodus 21:22. That biblical passage outlines the Mosaic Law in a case where a man is responsible for causing a woman’s miscarriage, which kills the fetus.

If the woman survives, then the perpetrator has to pay a fine to the woman’s husband. If the woman is killed, the perpetrator is also killed. This indicates that the fetus has value, but does not have the status of a person.

Pro-life apologists say the unborn has *some* value, if not actual personhood, but the New Testament is more permissive than the Old!

Paul not only claims the Law is abolished and refers to his previous adherence to the Law as “…so much garbage…”, but claims the risen Jesus said to him three times, “…my grace is sufficient for thee…” (II Corinthians 12:8-9).

Some Christians misinterpret this verse to mean they’re free to do as they please — ignoring all of the moral instructions Paul gives throughout his epistles altogether! “Choice. Choice. Choice.”

Okay, and this article totally makes sense. But what if the woman's life were at stake? What if there was a likelihood that both mother and child cannot make it to term? I am genuinely curious, that's all.

This is, of course, theologically utter nonsense. NOWHERE in either the Old or New Testament is a fetus considered to be a fully fledged child. There are passages which make it clear, indeed, that this is NOT the case. For instance: Exodus 21:22: "If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows.

Clearly this dos not suggest that the fetus's life is equal to that of a full-fledged human being, for which the penalty for killing would be death.

No, no, no. You *don’t* have to protect the unborn. Exodus 21 clearly indicates the unborn does not have the status of a person. Pro-life apologists argue the unborn has *some* value, if not actual personhood, but the New Testament is more permissible than the Old Testament!

Paul claims the Law, which Jesus, a rabbi, repeatedly upheld, is abolished and refers to his previous adherence to the Law as “so much garbage.” Some Christians claim they don’t even have to follow Paul, because Paul claimed the risen Jesus told him three times, “…my grace is sufficient for thee…” and they take these words as a license to do as they please, ignoring the rest of the moral instructions Paul gives throughout his epistles.

UC Berkeley law professor John T. Noonan, Jr., a Catholic, describes the discrimination pro-lifers faced from fellow Christians as well as from mainstream secular American society in his 1979 book, A Private Choice: Abortion in America in the Seventies.

In her essay “Life and Peace,” Juli Loesch wrote that when she spoke out against abortion at an antinuclear gathering, she:

“…tried to present a meticulous *secular* case against abortion. I marshalled all the scientific evidence… I followed it up with the most basic principle found in every human ethical system… do not do to others what you would not like done to you.

“This was rewarded by a brief silence, which was broken by a single question:

Pro-lifers must not play a sectarian game with animal activists. Saying, “*Your* religion says it’s wrong to kill animals, mine doesn’t…” is pointless when someone from a differing denomination could just as easily say, “Your religion says it’s wrong to kill the unborn, mine doesn’t.” There are pro-choice Protestant denominations, like the United Church of Christ.

As an animal advocate and a secularist, I’ve never understood the attempts of pro-life Christians to unsuccessfully deflect the issues of animal rights and vegetarianism by depicting them solely as someone else’s “religious beliefs” which they think don’t apply to them.

A lot of people look at abortion that way, too, you know!

On the other hand, perhaps pro-life Christians *do* see the abortion issue as sectarian.

My friend Ruth once told me when she was doing sidewalk counseling outside an abortion clinic with a couple of other Christians, these Christians were saying to her:

“We only want to prevent *Christian* women from having abortions…”

“I guess that leaves me to minister to the pagan!” said Ruth lightheartedly.

A bisexual witch, calling herself a pro-life witch on the Alternative Lifers email list said that if you accept the premise that abortion is morally equivalent to infanticide, that killing the unborn is as morally reprehensible as killing the born, then you can’t label a woman seeking abortion as a “victim,” any more than a woman who deliberately drowns her infants in a bathtub would be labelled a “victim.” The woman would be seen as a murderer, and would be punished accordingly.

Pro-life witch cynically said words to the effect of, “If you want to ban abortion, you’re pro-life. If you want to talk about reducing the number of abortions, join Democrats For Life!”

Steve Kaufman, head of the Christian Vegetarian Association (CVA), with a membership of several thousand and based in Cleveland, Ohio, appreciated it when I sent him a Democrats For Life of America (DFLA) pamphlet, but asked if DFLA favors criminalizing abortion. Good question. There are some pro-lifers, like vegan columnist Colman McCarthy, morally opposed to abortion, but who don’t think criminalization is the answer.

And Steve is a member of the United Church of Christ, a pro-choice Protestant denomination! For Steve to show interest in a DFLA pamphlet means even pro-choicers are sympathetic to the pro-life position.

No, no, no. You don’t have to protect the unborn. Exodus 21 clearly indicates the unborn does not have the status of a person. Pro-life apologists argue the unborn has *some* value, if not actual personhood, but the New Testament is more permissible than the Old Testament.

Paul claims the Law, which Jesus, a rabbi, repeatedly upheld, is abolished and refers to his previous adherence to the Law as “so much garbage.” Some Christians claim they don’t even have to follow Paul, because Paul claimed the risen Jesus told him three times, “…my grace is sufficient for thee…” and they take these words as a license to do as they please, ignoring the rest of the moral instructions Paul gives throughout his epistles.

If their view prevails, what basis do pro-life Christians have for opposing abortion, same-sex relations, etc. ?

Donate to Help Matt

Matt spends hours writing and working on the absolute truths you love to read and share. This blog is his primary source of income for him and his family. In order to help Matt keep writing, and to join the community in the battle for the traditional family, please donate. Whether it's a little or a lot, every bit counts. Thank you!